On the Research CD are all the positions of all the ships, constrained by
their navigational fixes on an hour by hour basis, sometimes more
frequently. You'll be able to tell exactly where the Itasca was and when.
Try it; I spent five long years databasing and doing the navigation, weather,
and radio messages that is now available for all to see for a nominal fee to
TIGHAR.

Message:

2

Subject:

Re:
Professionals

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Randy
Jacobson, Doug Brutlag

I've not piped up to date, but let's get something very clear here: FN did
not navigate anywhere near 50 to 100 miles off his target. The Oakland to
Honolulu maps indicate the plane was that far off the perfect rhumb line
between the two points if and only if there was no winds aloft. Without
real-time, constant navigational control, no navigator, repeat, NO navigator
or pilot could or even would try and maintain that level of navigational
precision to stay on a rhumb line over water. It simply wasn't possible
then. And there is no reason for anyone to do so...just monitor where the
plane is going, and make corrections when necessary to ensure you do come to
your target position.

LTM, who is getting very pissed about folks misinterpreting the facts in
this case.

From Ric

>the plane was that far off the perfect rhumb line between the two points if
>and only if there was no winds aloft.

I'm confused. If a celestial fix places the plane at a particular place, it
is there regardless of what the wind is doing.

From Doug Brutlag

Mike M., I could not agree more with you about professionalism.

Forumites:

I don't believe anyone is saying anything in the context that Fred
Noonan was a bad navigator, incompetent, dufus, boob, whatever. Fred
knew how to navigate square-riggers & aircraft, I don't dispute that.
For that matter there are a great many aviators I have met over the
past 24 years who possessed flying skills beyond measure. Some could
darn near make an airplane talk if they wanted to. But that is only
half of what makes an aviator (or navigator for that matter)
professional. If the person in question routinely makes errors,
blunders, flies into situations where angels fear to tread, fails stay ahead
of the airplane/situation, or even exercise the least amount of common
sense, then what we have here is a great "stick" , but not a
professional, not in the least. Having performed somewhere in the
neighborhood of 500 ocean crossings as well as island-hopping, I can
say without a doubt if you cannot stay in the loop long enough to
navigate within 50-100 miles of your destination, you will miss an
island --- period. Alan knows that and I'm sure Skeet knows that as well.
There's a saying in this business: "Flying is not inherently dangerous,
but it is terribly unforgiving of any careless or neglect."

Fred was off-course 50-135 miles for a good portion of the west
coast-Honolulu trip. As a matterof routine, the norm when giving a
position report is to also mention the reason for an off-course
deviation, such as weather for example. There is no mention of any
weather problems whatsoever. In that time period, ships would give
weather data along with their position reports that was used by a
special weather bureau (at Alameda mentioned in Grooch's book). Pan Am
actively sought out & used these (ship's) reports to forecast storms
enroute and also plot courses for their aircraft to avoid hazardous
weather and take advantage of favorable reported winds enroute. Again,
no mention of weather deviations, favorable winds, nothing. There are
also indications from Fred's pattern of use the DF that he may have been
dependent on it.

I own and have used a (similar) model of the A-5 Pioneer sextant that
Fred used on the ill-fated trip. I also own several other models of
hand held aviation sextants. I will not claim to be an expert but I can
say from experience using them and having face to face discussions with
retired navigators who depended on them in their careers, the typical
average accuracy for decent navigator was 10-15 miles and on occasion 20
was considered the limit of acceptable (barely). Fred mentions in a
letter to PVH Weems an accuracy of 10 miles (approximately). Call it the
average --- some did better, some did worse. All things considered, 50-135
miles off-course for a long duration or as possible matter of routine is
not acceptable. Not even for 1937!

Could Fred have done a better job? I believe and will give him credit
that he likely could have. So what happened? Was he lazy,
lackadaisical, bad attitude, got up on the wrong side of the bed that
day? Inconclusive. Could he have done things differently or better.
Yeah, assuming he knew his craft.

Standby, while I don my Nomex vest.

Doug Brutlag #2335

Message:

3

Subject:

Re:
1 N 177 W

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Janet
Whitney

We would be taking medium-resolution black-and-white digital photos of the
ocean floor, from maybe 50 feet above the ocean floor...or whatever the
visibility allowed. Using GPS on the fishing trawler and a sonar transponder
on the camera housing and bottom-ranging sonar. Tow the camera for 25 miles,
retrieve it, put new R/W CDs in the recorder, change the batteries, and
redeploy the camera. Tow for another 25 miles parallel to the last track
along a 157-337 (or whatever) line. Look at several thousand digital photos
per 25 mile search track. Extremely tedious but not technically difficult.
The biggest expense would be for diesel fuel for the trawler.

Janet Whitney

From Doug Brutlag

Janet

With no disrespect intended, if you think it so simple to search the
Pacific as you mentioned in previous posting, then get on a search engine
and find the site to contact Dr. Robert Ballard (finder of Titanic)
at the Wood's Hole research group/foundation I think is the name. If anyone
can tell you anything about finding a wreck in the middle of an ocean
he can. Since Titanic, I think he has explored Lusitania, Bismarck,
and the Hood. When you get his answer, please post it on the forum
for us all.

Ric: You're out of luck thinking you can charge to read forum
postings. For all the aviators out there, rumor has it we are so tight
we squeak. Case in point: How was copper wire invented?

Ric, how about a new section on the web site called "Forum Out Takes". You
could include the intended jokes and conspiracy stuff as well as
enthusiastic college kid's postings. Then again, I don't suppose you want to
encourage that sort of thing.

LTM (who likes a good laugh)
Kerry Tiller

From Alan Caldwell

Janet Whitney wrote:

> Nothing magic about 1N 177W except it's a place to start a search along a
> 157-337 line consistent with information (not speculation) about Earhart's
> disappearance.

Consistant with WHAT information, Janet? You missed telling me why the LOP
is 25 miles west of Howland. I and several others are trying to replot the
route and we need that information.

> Some of the engineering students here estimate we would need a fishing
> trawler that could handle 17,000 feet of Kevlar line and a pressure vessel to
> house a video cam, video recorder, strobe light, bottom-ranging sonar, and
> sonar transponder. Would that be a big deal? We don't think so.
>
> After towing the video cam system in a systematic search pattern for (say) 3
> months we would know what is and is not on the sea floor in the vicinity of
> Howland Is.

Janet, this is your best idea yet. Why don't you and those engineering
students do that on your Spring break and I'll go to the National Archives
for you?

Have you and your engineering student friends plotted all the current
directions and strengths from surface down 17,000' , the weights of all the
necessary equipment and the size and strength of the kevlar line? Also have
you computed how many feet of stuff has covered over the 1937 bottom? How
many feet into the bottom will the bottom ranging sonar penetrate? Did they
make a cost estimate of all this? If all this is feasible maybe your
university might foot the bill. If it isn't perhaps your engineering friends
might think about foregoing Spring break and hitting the books some more.

Alan, wondering why you never respond to anyone's questions
#2329

From Bob Lee

Now we know why students in American schools don't seem to learn the basics.

Message:

4

Subject:

Re:
1 N 177 W

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Ric
Gillespie

I am not Bob Ballard, nor am I any kind of expert in deep water searching. I
have, however, contracted for, helped plan for, participated in, and paid
for deep water search operations by real experts (Oceaneering International,
Inc.). I know enough about the process to disabuse Janet and her engineering
student friends of some misconceptions.

Janet says:

>... we would need a fishing trawler that could handle 17,000 feet of Kevlar
>line and a pressure vessel to house a video cam, video recorder, strobe
>light, bottom-ranging sonar, and sonar transponder. Would that be a big deal?
>We don't think so.

The water out there is about 17,000 feet deep, so you figure you'll need
about 17,000 feet of line, right? Wrong. The line doesn't hang straight
down. Towed array underwater gear has to be deployed from an A-frame on the
stern of the ship and the ratio of line needed to depth achieved is at least
three to one. In other words. if you want to search at 17,000 feet you'll
need about 51,000 feet of line.

How much boat do you need to carry 51,000 feet of line? Let me give you an
idea. In 1991 we wanted to search way down to 2,000 feet. (That's not a
typo. I mean two thousand feet.) The winch weighed 7,000 pounds and was
almost too much for the 120 foot ship we chartered. So much for your
"fishing trawler." Just to carry the weight of line you'll need you're
looking at a big ship --- and not just any big ship.

The bottom of the ocean, like the surface of the land, has hills and valleys.
To "fly" a towed array of sensing gear, and not slam it into a hillside, you
two things:

a very powerful, rapid-response winch that allows you to reel in or reel
out line quickly and precisely. We're not talking about a winch for hauling
in fishing nets.

precise information about what terrain is ahead --- and you can't get it from
a forward looking video camera. There is virtually no light at 17,000 feet
and the best lights in the best visibility won't give you anything like
enough lead time. You need bottom-mapping sonar built into the bow of your
ship so that the winch operator has real-time bathymetry information many
hundreds of feet ahead of his "fish." Even so, accidents are not uncommon.

So now you have a big ship with highly specialized equipment and people who
know how to operate it. Wanna guess what those puppies go for per day? I
don't have to guess. I've got just the boat for you. The University of Hawaii's
R/V Ka'imikai-o-Kanaloa (known in the trade as "The K-O-K") is 223 feet long,
has a "Seabeam 210" multibeam sonar bathymetric mapping system installed in
the bow, and a Markey DUSH-6 Hydrographinc winch with 7,000 meter capacity.
She'll do 10 kts and can stay out for 50 days, so you'll need to break off
and steam a thousand miles or so out and back to resupply at least once
during your three month operation, so add another ten days.

Five years ago a bargain basement price for her services was $10,700 per day.
If you could duplicate that price today you'd be looking at $1,070,000 for
your proposed operation. Of course, we haven't even talked about the cost of
whatever it is you plan to tow and the cost of getting your team of
engineering students to Hawaii, etc.

>The biggest expense would be for diesel fuel for the trawler.

Ahh, to be young again.

LTM,
Ric

Message:

5

Subject:

Re:
Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Oscar
Boswell

This weekend, I have had time to think about Noonan's navigation to Hawaii,
and
to review some of the recent postings about it.

I realize now that my earlier list of reasons Noonan might have been North of
the
rhumb line missed the most obvious one --- that's where the great circle course
is!

I overlooked the major erroneous assumption underlying this entire line of
discussion --- that erroneous assumption is that Noonan SHOULD have made good a
rhumb line course. What makes you think so, and why should he have done that?

Let's pause and define our terms. Since the earth is a sphere, the shortest
distance between two points is the segment of the "great circle" that
intersects those points in encircling the globe. On the artificial
latitude/longitude grid that we use to navigate, when one flys from A to B
along
a great circle, one's true course (MEASURED WITH REFERENCE TO THAT GRID)
changes
from moment to moment. (It doesn't jump around, it progresses constantly from
one course to the next - from, say, 240 degrees to 240.0001 degrees, and
then to
240.0002 degrees. Since no one can steer that small [as they say], to fly a
great
circle as a practical matter one flys a series of "rhumb line" [q.v. below]
courses that APPROXIMATE the great circle. Lindbergh, for example, planned
course
changes every hour [and 100 miles] or so on his 3600 mile flight to Paris to
approximate the great circle route.)

A "rhumb line course" crosses all lines of longitude at the same angle - in
going
from point A to point B the course (measured with reference to the grid)
remains
constant. A rhumb line course is (by definition) a straight line WHEN DRAWN
ON A
MERCATOR PROJECTION.

The problem is that a Mercator projection is not an accurate representation of
the surface of the earth --- because (among other reasons) the lines of latitude
are shown as parallel, when in fact they converge at the poles. (Instead of
being
a mere point on the surface of a sphere, the pole on a Mercator map is a line
25,000 miles long.)

Mercator projections distort reality. In the Northern Hemisphere, the actual
"direct course" (a "great circle") lies North of the "straight line on the
Mercator chart" (rhumb line course). "Great Circle" and "rhumb line" courses
between A and B are exactly the same only (1) when points A and B are direcly
North and South of each other, and (2) when both A and B are on the equator.

As an example of the difference between rhumb line and great circle courses,
consider New York to Paris. New York lies about 40.5 degrees North; Paris lies
about 48.5 degrees North. At the midpoint, a rhumb line course will be about
44.5
degrees North. Where will the midpoint of a great circle course be? Well, I'm
no
navigator, so let's do it the easy way --- no great precision is required to
make
the point. Take a piece of string and stretch it taut accross the face of your
globe. The midpoint is at (say) 51 degrees North (it doesn't matter if we're
off
a degree or two). That means the great circle midpoint is perhaps 5 1/2 degre
es
North of the rhumb line midpoint. Since one degree of latitude is equal to
about
69 statute miles, the great circle course is 370 or 375 miles North of the
rhumb
line. A person who drew a straight (rhumb) line course from NY to Paris on a
Mercator chart, and then charted the midpoint of a great circle flight might
think that the flight was 400 miles or so off course - he'd be wrong, because
the
flight was right where it should be following a great circle route. (Those
interested in greater accuracy in discussing the actual great circle route
NY-Paris will find the "vertices" of the great circle at 10 degree intervals
of
longitude in Peter Garrison's Long Distance Flying, page 106.)

What's the situation on the route from California to Hawaii?

Luckily for the navigationally-challenged among us (which includes me), we
have
available an interesting document. P.V.H. Weems, Air Navigation (3rd Ed. 1943)
has a pocket in the rear cover containg a foldout chart showing the actual
navigation of the Archbold PBY "GUBA" on its three-stage crossing of the
Pacific
from San Diego to New Guinea in June 1938. If one lays the chart on the
kitchen
table and places a yardstick through Honolulu and San Diego, it is immediately
apparent that the GUBA's entire flight took place well North of the rhumb
line.
At 138 degrees West, GUBA's position was about 2 FULL DEGREES of latitude
North
of the rhumb line (2 degrees = 138 statute miles). One can also see that about
200 miles out, upon receiving Makapuu beacon, GUBA altered course about 10
degrees left, to reach its destination.

Weems (page 359) refers the student to the GUBA chart and calls it "the most
complete available example of skilled navigation". (He wasn't upset because
they
were North of the rhumb line!) Weems' refence to the GUBA flight follows
almost
immediately his reprinting of the long (nearly 3 pages of reduced type) letter
from Noonan to Weems detailing Noonan's navigation practices, which Weems
reproduced as both "a valuable technical description" and "a tribute to the
Navigator of the Earhart plane" (page 356).

Without reviewing Bob's work and Noonan's charts, I can't comment in any
greater
detail on the issues, other than to say that it seems to me that somewhat more
caution in making pronouncements about FN's navigational shortcomings is
appropriate. (And I won't go into Dakar, other than to make the comment --
prompted by one of Ric's recent postings --- that if one is truly East of a
position, a course of 036 will not get you there, unless, perhaps, you are
flying to the Antipodes.)

Oscar Boswell

From Ric

Your description of rhumb line versus great circle is correct but it's clear
that the Oakland/Honolulu flight began on the rhumb line, followed it pretty
well for a few hundred miles until DF bearings from California were no longer
possible. The flight then veered off course to the north. When the error
was discovered the course was altered to run parallel to the rhumb line until
they came within DF range of Honolulu where the course was changed to head
straight for Oahu.

We'll have Bob Brandenburg's map added to the 8th Edition chapter on the
Oakland/Honolulu flight soon.

LTM,
Ric

Message:

6

Subject:

Re:
Itasca's initial search

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Bob
Lee

I may be off base
but seems to me that you spending time explaining these things to Janet
is analogous to utilizing the time of a brain surgeon to explain tic-tac-toe.

Bob Lee

From Ric

Well, I'm certainly
no brain surgeon, and I've been known to lose at tic-tac-toe, but I was
also once a college student with all the answers; astonished that my professors
could not see how simple it all was. I figure that Janet, in her brashness,
often expresses doubts and convictions that other may harbor but are less
willing to express. I answer what I can find time to answer without derailing
more productive discussions.

Message:

7

Subject:

Half
hour gas

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Ross
Devitt

>He based that decision largely
> upon an alleged radio transmission ("only 1/2 hour gas left") that, in
> retrospect, was almost certainly misheard.

It could even have been 'only half "our" gas left'.. The English language
can be rather slippery when spoken on radio by foreigners... May even have
referred to half their reserve gas.. We'll never know.

Th' WOMBAT

From Ric

At 1912 GMT Radioman 3rd Class William L. Galten records Earhart as saying:
"KHAQQ calling Itasca. We must be on you but cannot see you,
but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio .
We are flying at 1000 feet."

At 1910 GMT Radioman 3rd Class Thomas O'Hare records in a separate radio log:
"Earhart on now; says she is running out of gas, only 1/2 hour left, can't
hear us at all."

Galten's sole job is to listen for and communicate with Earhart. O'Hare's
job is to handle all of the ship's other radio traffic. Galten quotes
Earhart. O'Hare paraphrases her. Although the time is slightly different,
they are talking about the same transmission. Oddly, the two positions are
about two minutes apart in time (this is consistent in several messages).

Earhart has used the words "half hour" in several transmissions, always
referring to when she expects to hear from the Itasca whose regular scheduled
transmission times were on the hour and half hour.

Earhart was still in the air an hour after this transmission. It seems most
likely that O'Hare simply misunderstood her.

LTM,
Ric

Message:

8

Subject:

Does
Janet Whitney exist?

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Marty
Moleski

Ric wrote:

> ... I figure that Janet, in
> her brashness, often expresses doubts and convictions that other may
> harbor but are less willing to express. ...

I am very grateful for Janet's posts.

The latest series has made me wonder whether she really
exists. I marvel at the combination of extraordinary
technical information and bewildering innocence. Even
if Janet is a real human being, she must have friends or
family members with whom she discusses the history of
radios, navigation techniques, history, piracy, and
engineering. She works hard at developing most of
her questions and challenges.

She's a lot like the kid who doesn't see the emperor's
new clothes. And, as Ric said, she asks questions that
other people probably have, such as: "Why don't they just drag
a cheap sensor over the most likely region of impact?"

Uh, oh. I'm suffering an inspiration even as I type.
I suspect that "Janet Whitney" is Pat's alter-ego. She
wakes up in the middle of the night in a trance state,
disturbed by all of the loose ends in the TIGHAR hunt,
and drops "Janet Whitney" notes into Ric's e-mail when
he's not looking. It could be that Ric is in on the
conspiracy because the "Janet Whitney" posts give him
a chance to hit the long ball.

Those who are keeping score at home may want to note
that even though I do not subscribe to the Fallacy of
the Unprovable Negative Hypothesis [FUNH], this is
one of those negatives that is incapable of proof:
"'Janet Whitney posts are not the product of a
conspiracy." Any e-mail placed in the Forum to
disprove this hypothesis might itself be a product
of the Janet Whitney Conspiracy. :o(

Marty

From Ric

I have often been accused of inventing characters like Rollin Reineck, Cam
Warren, and, yes, even Janet Whitney, in order to make myself look good. I
only wish I was that creative. Besides, they often cause me to blow my cool,
which does not make me look good.

Janet is real. I have seen a photo of her. (Actually it was more of an
impression left on a sheet she once slept on.)

Message:

9

Subject:

Re:
1N 177W

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Janet
Whitney

Who said the sonar/digital camera array would be towed at 10 knots? Not me.

Janet Whitney

From Ric

I didn't say it would be towed at 10 knots either. I only said that K-O-K
could go that fast. In practical application most underwater gear is towed
at considerably less than 10 knots. The point is, all that line and the
array at the end has drag. Lower the thing over the side when you're hove to
and, assuming no current (never the case), 17,000 feet of line will get you
to the 17,000 foot bottom. A soon as you move the boat forward the line will
no longer be vertical. Try it in the bathtub. You can't go slow enough to
not need lots more line than the depth you're trying to reach.

Message:

10

Subject:

Re:
1N 177W

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Marty
Moleski

Ric wrote:

> ... you'd be looking at
> $1,070,000 for your proposed operation. Of course, we haven't even
> talked about the cost of whatever it is you plan to tow and the cost of
> getting your team of engineering students to Hawaii, etc.

Great post, Ric!

That's the beauty of the Janet Whitney Conspiracy (JWC) that you
and Pat have cooked up. She tosses these softballs and you
get to teach us about Pacific reality.

Keep 'em coming! ;o)

LTM
Marty #2359

Message:

11

Subject:

Re:
Itasca's Initial Search

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Alan
Caldwell

> I figure that Janet, in her brashness, often expresses doubts …

Ric, I haven't seen much in the way of shyness on the part of forum
members. :-)

If Janet actually exists I am sure she is sincere in her efforts however
misguided. I can easily overlook the consequences of her youth in being
unable to comprehend the scientific method of research. That she'll learn. I
find no excuse, however, for her obstinate unwillingness to review all the
TIGHAR web site information before she climbs out on a limb and prepares to
saw it off. I am also at a loss as to why she only half participates. By that
I mean she will toss out a theory yet she NEVER responds to whatever cricism
that is forthcoming. There is never an exchange with Janet. Her postings
consist of "Why don't you guys do this or that" or an offering of a
completely unsupported hypothisis and then she goes on to something equally
unsupportable without a comment or batting an eye. I don't know whether she
has anything of substance to offer or not. She will never enter into a
discussion. Why do you suppose that is?

Alan
#2329

From Ric

You're asking me?

Message:

12

Subject:

Re:
Professionals

Date:

2/19/01

From:

Randy
Jacobson

OK, let me try again. The rhumb line between Oakland and Honolulu was the
route one would fly if there were no cross-winds. Once airborne, the pilot
would use the rhumb line course to steer, but crosswinds woud push the
plane left or right. Now let's consider a very good navigator who
determines a certain cross-wind over an hour's duration. He has two
choices: tell the pilot to adjust for the cross wind by over-steering to the
direction that the wind is coming from (he has to also compensate for the
set over the previous hour). Depending upon the severity of the cross-wind,
only a small correction might be necessary, perhaps less than a degree. Can
the pilot steer a course change of less than a degree? Hardly. So, the
other alternative is to let the plane continue off course until such time
that the set (offset from rhumb line due to cross-winds) is sufficient to
make a reasonable course change for the pilot. That also allows more time
for the cross-winds to blow, and permit a larger vaue and time to calculate
the crosswinds (that's good). What is a reasonable course change? 1
degree? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? That's up to the pilot, navigator, and
equipment aboard.

BTW, AE and FN knew that there would be strong winds aloft from weather
reports. Analysis of the flight path deviations from rhumb line matches well
the hindcasts of winds aloft from all available sources at the time and
compiled years later. The deviations were due entirely to crosswinds, and
IMHO, FN monitored the flight trajectory is sufficient detail to know what
was happening at the time. Did he navigate well enough to send a position
report due to a possible distress call in the plane at any time? No. But
he did have the position good enough for 30-50 nm at any one time, mostly
errors along track, not cross-track.

Message:

13

Subject:

Re:
Half hour gas

Date:

2/20/01

From:

Cam
Warren, Dustymiss, Ric Gillespie

The question is STILL
not resolved.

Your argument in favor of Galten is certainly a valid one, but it counters
the several witnesses (including the two wire service reporters --- not
exactly casual listeners) who support O'Hare.

Cam Warren
(The love child of R. Gillespie and Janet Reno)

From Ric

I should have told you long ago but, you're adopted. We stole you from
a Cuban family.

From Dustymiss

Having done a considerable amount of transcriptions --- the latest being
four tapes of Teresa James (former WW II WAFS pilot) for the International
Women's Air and Space Museum , I can attest to what you think you hear
and what you hear not always being the same.

What she could of said ( I know this is speculation) is "have four hours"
of gas. If you say it right "have four hours" and "half an hour" could
seem mighty similar over an air plane radio. And isn't four hours of gas
the magic number that Vidal is quoted to have said Amelia would turn back
to the Gilberts when she hit?

Four hours could take you to Gardner just as well. --- I know, just
specuation.

LTM --- Who knew better than to speculate about anything.

From Ric

Okay chillun, let's get into this "half hour gas" thing. To recap briefly:

At 1912 GMT Radioman 3rd Class William L. Galten records Earhart as
saying: "KHAQQ calling Itasca. We must be on you but cannot see
you, but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio
. We are flying at 1000 feet."

At 1910 GMT Radioman 3rd Class Thomas O'Hare records in a separate radio
log: "Earhart on now; says she is running out of gas, only 1/2 hour left,
can't hear us at all."

Galten's sole job is to listen for and communicate with Earhart. O'Hare's
job is to handle all of the ship's other radio traffic. Galten quotes
Earhart. O'Hare paraphrases her. Although the time is slightly different,
they are talking about the same transmission. Oddly, the two positions
are about two minutes apart in time (this is consistent in several messages).
Radioman 2nd Class Frank Cipriani, on Howland Island, does not hear the
transmission.

There is, however, another real-time, or near real-time, account of
what Earhart said. The ship's deck log, being kept by Lt. W. J. Swanston,
reads: "0742 Plane position reported as near the island and gas running
low." Note that he uses Galten's time and Galten's phrasing.

Regardless of whose version (if either) was correct, it seems apparent
that O'Hare's version was accepted by Commander Thompson because at 19:56
GMT (about 44 minutes later) Cipriani on Howland records in his log: "Received
information that Itasca believe Earhart down. Landing party recalled
to vessel."

It was 20:42 GMT (another 46 minutes) before the deck log recorded the
landing party back aboard Itasca but by then, at 20:13 GMT, another message
had been heard from Earhart. Clearly she was still aloft. Plans to go
looking for her were put on hold hoping that she might yet show up.

At 21:45 Thompson sent the following message to Coast Guard HQ in San
Francisco:

EARHART
CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL POSITION DOUBTFUL
CONTACT 0646 REPORTED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM ITASCA BUT
NO RELATIVE BEARING PERIOD 0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 DASH 337
BUT NO REFERENCE POINT PRESUME HOWLAND PERIOD ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM
TIME ALOFT AND IF NONARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTH
WEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA PERIOD SEA SMOOTH VISIBILITY
NINE CEILING UNLIMITED PERIOD UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED
TIME

Fifteen minutes later at 22:00 GMT, despite his declared intention to
stay at Howland until noon (23:30 GMT), Thompson gave the order to get
underway and ten minutes later the ship was steaming on a course of 337
degrees to begin searching along the line of position.

O'Hare's "half hour gas left" message was clearly crucial to Thompson's
perception of the situation and instrumental in his decision to order
the ship to leave Howland Island an hour and a half before Earhart was
otherwise expected to run out of fuel.

According to Army Air Corps Lt. Daniel Cooper's report of July 27, 1937,
"Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of
lasting 30 hours." Cooper's report quotes Galten's "but gas is running
low" version of the message but attributes the time to 19:11 GMT, halfway
between Galten's 19:12 and O'Hare's 19:10.

About four hours after the ship began its search (02:15 GMT), United
Press correspondent H.N. Hanzlick aboard Itasca sent his story which included
the following description:

MEN
AT STATIONS TENSELY ALERT
LONG WAIT CAPPED BY ANXIETY
SEARCH FELT DEEPLY
MEN WORKING WITH GRIM EFFICIENCY
GREAT CONCERN OVER WHY AMELIA SHORT OF FUEL IN AIR ONLY APPROXIMATELY
TWENTY AND HALF HOURS
SHOULD HAVE HAD SEVERAL HOURS MORE FUEL
WHY AMELIA NEVER GAVE POSITION
HER RADIO EVIDENTLY NOT WORKING PROPERLY
ITASCA REQUESTED EACH BROADCAST GIVE POSITION
NEVER GIVEN STOP
AT EIGHT FORTYTWO AMELIA RADIOED QUOTE HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL
POSITION DOUBTFUL UNQUOTE
LAST MESSAGE NINE FORTYTHREE QUOTE LINE OF POSITION ONE FIVE SEVEN DASH
THREE THREE SEVEN AM CIRCLING PLEASE GIVE RADIO BEARING UNQUOTE
HER VOICE SOUNDED VERY TIRED ANXOUS ALMOST BREAKING

Hanzlick's representation of what Earhart said is obviously based upon
Thompson's 21:45 message to San Francisco and his own somewhat scrambled
recollection of what was said and when.

The other reporter aboard Itasca, James Carey of the Associated Press,
was no more accurate when he filed his story 45 minutes later at 03:00
GMT:

RADIO
REPORTED SEVEN FORTY TWO AM EARHART RUNNING OUT GAS STOP LATER MESSAGE
PICKED UP QUOTE CIRCLING IN AIR UNQUOTE

The next day Hanzlick filed another story which included:

NOW
LIKE SEARCHING FOR CLOSE FRIEND
THOUGH MOST HAVE NEVER SEEN HER SOME HEARD HER VOICE
THOSE WHO DID HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR COURAGE WHEN SHE CALLED IN SLOW
MEASURED WORDS HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL STOP
NOT UNTIL LAST MESSAGE DID VOICE SHOW EMOTION STOP

If either reporter actually heard what was received from Earhart they
did a very poor job of reporting it.

So which version of the 19:12 (or 19:10) transmission is more accurate?
It's interesting to read what Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts had to say on
the subject when he was interviewed by Elgen Long on April 11, 1973.

Long: (T)here
seems to be some confusion about whether she said she had thirty minutes
of fuel left or running low --was there any solution to that?

Bellarts:
Well, the only solution is what's in the log.

Long: Well,
one log says one thing and O'Hare's log said the other.

Bellarts:
Well, don't go on O'Hare's log, because I say --I wasn't even aware
that O'Hare was putting that stuff down. ... No, I mean that. I mean
that. O'Hare shouldn't have been putting that down because it was not
his responsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know.

Later in the interview:

Long: What--this
thirty minutes routine--then that just came up out of left field somewhere?
I have thirty minutes fuel remaining, one half hour...

Bellarts:
Ah, well, I'll tell you how that happened, I believe. When -- after
the flight, I actually think it took place -- I can't recall if it was
going into Honlulu on the way north ... or if it was from Honolulu back
to 'Frisco. I don't recall. But I recall the old man was down there,
Thompson, Baker, and myself ...and they was concocting up a long letter
to, you know, sort of a search report, and I think that was put in that
report. They should never have put that in. They quoted---they misquoted
it.

Bellarts:
Well, if O'Hare did, then maybe that's where the stuff came from.

Long: Let
me read what....(he then reads O'Hare's log entry).

Bellarts:
(Laughs) That stinkin' O'Hare. ... Possibly O'Hare might have had something
in his little punkin' head that he might have, you know, thought he
was going to make a bundle of jack on that or something.

It is worth mentioning that , while we have what is purported to be
copies of the original radio log kept by Galten and Bellarts, the only
available copes of the log kept by O'Hare are of the "smoothed" version
that was re-typed sometime after the fact.

Of course, anything Leo Bellarts said in 1973 is anecdotal, but taken
in context with the contemporaneous material, and in the absence of any
supporting real-time corroboration, O'Hare's report that Earhart said
anything about a half hour of fuel left seems to be lacking any credibilty.

LTM,
Ric

Message:

14

Subject:

Re:
Noonan's navigation to Hawaii

Date:

2/21/01

From:

Bob
Brandenburg

There seems to be an implicit assumption that Noonan was flying a great circle
track to Honolulu, thus explaining the difference between his actual track
made
good and the ideal rhumb track.

Plotting a great circle track on a Mercator projection is a tedious and
time-consuming task that would provide no useful information in this case.
But
I recommend it as an exercise for those interested in learning something about
navigation.

I can save time and angst for all concerned by assuring you that Noonan was
not
following a great circle, nor could he have done so.

To navigate via a great circle requires making an infinite number of course
changes at infinitely small time intervals, and therefor is not practical.
Hence, Noonan could not have been flying a true great circle track.

A navigator wishing to take advantage of the fact that a great circle is the
shortest distance between two points on the surface of the earth will, using a
great circle plotting chart, subdivide the desired track into sequential
segments. He then transfers the end points of those segments to a Mercator
projection chart and connects them with straight lines which, of course, are
rhumb lines. Each rhumb line track segment is a chord subtending an arc of
the
great circle. The end point of each rhumb is a way point at which the
navigator
changes course to follow the next segment. The number of way points used is a
function of how closely the navigator wants to approximate the great circle.
The tradeoff is between the number of way points, and hence the required
navigation effort, and the distance saved relative to the rhumb track from the
point of origin to the destination.

Now, here is a brief comparison of the great circle and rhumb tracks between
Oakland and Honolulu:

The great circle distance is 2090 nautical miles. The navigator must
initially
fly course 252 degrees true, and gradually and continuously change course to
the
left over time, with his final course being 244 degrees true as he reaches his
destination. This requires an infinite number of position fixes and course
changes - - clearly impossible.

The rhumb distance is 2107 nautical miles, and requires the navigator to fly a
single course of 242 degrees true from start to finish.

The distance saved by flying a true great circle would be 17 miles.

To put it another way, the great circle and rhumb tracks between Oakland and
Honolulu are nearly coincident.

Inspection of Noonan's actual track clearly shows that he wasn't attempting to
fly either a great circle or a rhumb track. It appears that his goal was
merely
to get close enough to pick up the signal from the radio beacon at the
lighthouse on Makapuu Point, which he did at 1115Z at a distance of about 670
nautical miles, and to follow the radio bearing to his destination, which he
did. During the preceding 10 hours and 43 minutes since departing Oakland, he
had a total of 4 navigational fixes. The first fix was based on a radio
bearing
on a beacon near San Francisco plus two celestial bodies. The last three fixes
were based on two celestial bodies each. It is important to note that a
two-body celestial fix is prone to a much larger position error than a fix
obtained with three or more bodies.

None of this is intended to suggest that Noonan would have missed Hawaii if he
didn't get the beacon signal from Makapuu Point. The Hawaiian chain of
islands
is a big target, and it would be hard to miss even without the radio bearing.

The point of examining Noonan's navigation habits enroute to Honolulu is to
search for insights that could help explain subsequent events. The
Oakland-to-Honolulu flight was the first leg of the planned East-to-West
circumnavigation, with Howland Island being the next objective after Honolulu.

Had Noonan been using the Oakland to Honolulu leg as a contingency rehearsal
for
finding Howland without a radio bearing from the Itasca, we should expect to
see
much tighter celestial navigation than he demonstrated. Instead, we see very
loose navigation with heavy reliance on a terminal radio bearing.

Absent evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume that Noonan
used
the same navigation methods on the Lae to Howland leg.

The question is whether Noonan's navigation was good enough to find
the Itasca and Howland Island without a radio bearing from the
Itasca.

Fact: Noonan did not get a radio bearing from the Itasca.

Fact: Noonan did not find the Itasca or Howland Island.

Conclusion: Noonan's navigation wasn't good enough to find Howland island
without a radio bearing.

Bob

From Ric

Which is not to say that Noonan wasn't a good enough navigator to find
Howland without a radio bearing, but if you're navigating "loose" and
counting on a radio bearing, and then you don't get it, you're in trouble.

Message:

15

Subject:

Re: 1N 177W

Date:

2/21/01

From:

Janet
Whitney

The first thing we
would do when the trawler reached 1 N 177 W is stop the engines and check
the drift using the GPS. Then we would start an engine and keep the trawler
stationary while we deployed the digital camera / sonar package. We would
check the current every few hundred feet using the GPS and sonar transponder.
We would slowly pay out the line until the camera/sonar package was (say)
100 feet off the ocean floor, taking measurements of the currents, effect
on the camera/sonar package. We would try to take some stationary photos
of the ocean floor. We would do this for several days. When we got a feeling
of how the camera/sonar package performed at 17,000 feet we would start
towing in a search pattern. We would tow at 2 knots maximum speed. It would
take a minimum of three months to search a reasonably large area.

Janet Whitney

From Ric

I say go for it.
You may even be able to get the diesel fuel donated. I'm sure that all
of us here on the forum wish you and your compatriots calm seas and the
very best of luck. We'll eagerly await the results of your search. Let
us know when you get back. Bon voyage!

Message:

16

Subject:

Re:
Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii

Date:

2/21/01

From:

Chris
Kennedy

One thing that I believe
has been discussed before is that AE and FN may have been in visual range
of Howland, but unable to spot it because of shadows thrown over the water
by the clouds. Also, depending on a number of factors (clouds, surf noise
etc.) people on Itasca and Howland may not have been able to spot
or hear the plane even though it was in visual/hearing range. If any of
this is true (I keep remembering "we must be on you but can't see you"),
it seems to me that this qualifies the conclusion that either AE or FN talents
weren't good enough for the task.

--Chris Kennedy

From Ric

I think we're all agreed that when AE said she "..must be on you but
cannot see you" she was where she thought Howland should be, but it wasn't
there. The island can't move, so she must have been somewhere other than
where she thought she was. That fact had to be as obvious to her as it
is to us.

We're also agreed that when she said, an hour later, that she was "on
the line 157 337" and that she was "running north and south" she was searching
for Howland by exploring along the 157 337 line which she believed ran
through Howland.

We're also all in agreement that she never saw Howland and the question
becomes --- why? Because, although she was technically within visual range,
she couldn't pick out the island from the cloud shadows while squinting
into the sun? Or was she so far away that she never had any chance of
seeing the island?

If we're going to suggest the former explanation we also have to say
that they somehow failed to see Baker either, which was forty miles to
the southeast on pretty much the same LOP --- and remember, if they're
running up and down the LOP they're not looking into the sun. In other
words, we'd be saying that Noonan's navigation was just about perfect
even without help from DF but the islands were effectively just impossible
to see.

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation.
No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic,
photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion
of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied,
transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic,
mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose
without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.